Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Appeal Courts will use deference in reviewing interlocutory injunctions

R v Conseil Scolaire
Fransaskois, 2013 SKCA 35 is a useful case for the proposition that the
determination of whether an interlocutory injunction ought to be granted will
be considered with deference by an appeal court:

13 As a
preliminary matter, it is important to underscore the standard of review to be
applied. It has been often said that appellate courts have a limited role in
reviewing the granting of an interim or interlocutory injunction. In that
regard, the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted the deferential approach
established by Diplock J. in Hadmor Productions Ltd. v. Hamilton,
[1982] 1 All E.R. 1042 and Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan
Stores Ltd., 1987 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110. The reviewing court must
not interfere with a Chambers judge's
exercise of discretion merely on the ground that the members of the court would
have exercised their discretion differently (Hadmor, at p. 1046; Metropolitan
Stores, pp. 154-56). As the Supreme Court of Canada said recently in Harper
v. Canada
(Attorney General),2000 SCC 57 (CanLII), 2000 SCC 57, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 764 at p. 777: "[t]o
interfere, there must be a clear mistake on the law or the evidence, or some
other glaring error." From this Court see also: Canada (Attorney General) v.
Saskatchewan Water Corp.,1991 CanLII 3951 (SK CA), [1992] 4 W.W.R. 712 and GovanLocalSchool
Board v. Last Mountain School Division No. 29reflex, (1991), 83 D.L.R. (4th)
685 at p. 690.
[emphasis
added]